Skip to main content
· 1/15/1867

Plummer v. Power

Citations

  • 29 Tex. 6

Syllabus

<p>It is conclusively settled, by repeated decisions of this court, that a new trial may be granted by the district court in a case properly invoking its equitable powers, after the adjournment of the term of the court at which the judgment was rendered. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1470, Note 566.)</p> <p>But it is equally clear that such relief will not be granted unless the party seeking it can show that he was prevented from making a valid defense to the action, in which the judgment has been rendered against him by fraud, accident, or the act of the opposite party, unmixed with fault or negligence on his part. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1470, Note 566.)</p> <p>He must be able to impeach the justice and equity of the verdict of which he complains, and to show also that there is good grounds to suppose that a different result will be attained by a new trial.</p> <p>It has been repeatedly decided in this court, that the eleven-league grants to Power and Hewitson, within their colony, on Aransas bay, being within the littoral leagues, and having been granted without the consent of the President of Mexico, are invalid, and vest no title. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 546, Notes 150, 348.)</p> <p>But now it is insisted, that this void grant may be used to prove the extent of the boundaries within which the plaintiffs claim, and by the length of possession to raise the presumption of a grant to the extent of these boundaries, or else to avail themselves of such possession under the statute of limitation. But it is' not shown that the title passed from the government, or that the defendant had a title to the land, until a few weeks before the commencement of his original suit. Therefore no defense could have been interposed under the statute of limitation. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 4622, 4624, Notes 1031, 1033.)</p> <p>As there was no proof to show that the plaintiff in the ejectment suit acquired his title more than ten years before commencing his suit, the court thought it unnecessary to d

Judges: Moore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.